Elephantman, I'd like to answer your question

Yes, a point should come, must come, and may come, where I can no longer in good conscience vote for Obama. It may be soon.

But, please, try and anser this for yourself. You are a fiscal conservative. Reagan and Bush II have run up the worst deficits in American history. They have spent money like drunken sailors and failed to shrink government. When do you say, "enough" and vote for an alternative? Or, do you think that McCain will cut spending, shrink government, and balance the budget? And why would you think that? And why, therefore, would you vote for him?

I think that we have two very flawed candidates for president, and that we can overstate the differences between them. The fact is, we are, both sides, getting what our masters want, and this should disturb you as a man with libertarian leanings as much as it bugs me as a social democrat.

-- James Levy

James, I hardly know what to say in response to a comment in which I am not ridiculed for being stupid, or a fascist, or a "Rethug," "Repug," "Repuke," or a variant of excrement.

The House Organ of the Republican Party, the Wall Street Journal, is routinely much, much more critical of its own than is the NYT or the Nation or NPR is of Democrats.

Spending is the particular bugaboo of the Journal, and the Journal has railed against spending. Non-discretionary spending is a huge issue. The Club for Growth has done to Republicans, on spending, what the Democrats did to Joe Leiberman on the war. Except that Republicans who have been defeated by the Club for Growth's efforts haven't made it as Independents.

I have had disagreements with John McCain's past record: McCain-Feingold, the Gang of 14, allowing unionization of TSA workers, etc. To me, the two most important issues to be faced by the next President will be security in southwest Asia, and the filling of the next Supreme Court vacancy as well as a large number of federal court vacancies. On those two issues, I have real agreement with a McCain Presidency. You could say, that I think McCain is right on the issues that are biggest to me. For Glenn Greenwald, it is the opposite, it seems to me. His greatest concern is what he thinks is the breakdown of the rule of law in America's domestic and foreign affairs. It is Glenn's 'biggest issue,' and on that issue, Obama has been as profoundly disappointing as he could possibly have been. He reversed himself on Glenn's signature issue, telecom immunity. Obama can't simply be regarded as one vote in 100 on that issue. Had Obama taken up the cause, he might have carried the day. Glenn Greenwald would be right, and justified, to think that Obama had abandoned the cause.

So that's a huge difference between my support of McCain, and Glenn's support of Obama.

There's no perfect candidate for most voters (excepting "Obama girl"); I freely admit it. We all see compromise. But if McCain had said, 'I've disagreed with the Rumsfeld approach to Iraq all along, and now I (along with my running mate, Mike Huckabee) are staking our campaign on a wihdrawal from Iraq, and federal court trials for every Guantanamo detainee,' then you can be assured that I would have withheld my support from the Republican nominee.

Which raises another question for Glenn Greenwald: Under what reasonably foreseeable circumstances can you envision an abandonment of Obama?

To bad Bush didn't believe in a strong dollar. Nobody wants to do business with Bush or the US, and that is mostly too bad for big oil.

American consumers don't have to buy our oil from BP, ExxonMobil or Chevron as we could just buy it straight from Russia or OPEC minus any Western Oil Contracts. The Bush administration's investment in ouright lying is the best reason for global leaders to just say NO.

I do know why Jackson Diehl bothers, because Americans are not going to cry for BP as they fill up their gas tanks at $ 4.00 or more a gallon even with the threat of making it more expensive to do so. The combustible engine is an antiquated piece of technology we could dispense with at any time. BP, ExxonMobil and many other Big Oil companies are not interested in fair business deals, NOT with American citizens and NOT with foreign countries either. Big Oil is only interested in hostage situations and hostile control. The best thing Americans can do is simply find ways so they NEVER have to stop at another ExxonMobil or BP gas station ever again.

Elephantman, Just answer Glenn's questions. We do not have to respond only to yours...

I dare you....

I was very intrigued by Chris Hedges' ("Collateral Damge") appearance on C-Span's Q&A this past weekend wherein he called television "journalists" in particular "courtesans."

And he stated that Mr. Obama is simply a bright, shiny member of the political power structure who simply puts a nice spin on what the powerful want (he specifically cited the recent telecom immunity vote).

The interview can be viewed here:

http://preview.tinyurl.com/698zfz

Any thoughts on this, Mr. Greenwald?

Of course Jackson Diehl is appalled by the law breaking of the Russian government. This law breaking is directed towards corporations and more importantly oil companies. If Medvedev was directing his law breaking efforts against ordinary citizens as the Bush administration does we might not see so much indignation from Jackson Diehl or the Washington Post. By the same token, and I am delving into fantasy here, if the Bush Administration engaged in illegal activities against corporations or oil companies The Washington Post would rise to the task as a defender of the rule of law.

Today there are about 5000 PLA troops in Sudan guarding Chinese oil interests. There are about 5000 French troops in the Central African Republic guarding French coltan interests in the CAR and Congo. There are Ethiopian troops in Somalia doing god knows what. And troops from Ghana and Nigeria as well as France in Cote d'Ivoire enforcing 'international justice' and sanctions. The Bosnian republic is ruled as a virtual absolute dictatorship by the UN who's viceroy can enact or overturn any law he likes. While in next door Serbia, the 'sanctions' did almost nothing until the government decided on the PR stunt of turning over a well known wanted man for war crimes who was openly living there.

What exactly did sanctions do for Iraq in the years 1991-2001? I mean other than precipitate ethnic violence? And I'd like someone to point to all the good that sanctions and/or sternly worded letters did with Iran or China (vis a vis Tibet for example).

I suppose all the liberal bloggers everywhere can call for the entire US government to be hanged from cranes in public like Iranian criminals, but that's not likely to occur.

Oh wait I forgot, this isn't about 'results' it's about media critics critiquing other media critics and thinking they have even 1% of the pull they think they do.